Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat
Really? I don't want to lump the general population into a "they're idiots" category but it seems obvious to me that the choice of codec, alone, doesn't designate video quality. You can make an XviD movie at a much higher quality than an h.264 version simply by making the file size that much bigger, so... why would h.264 carry a stigma of being strictly of higher quality rather than having better quality per bitrate?
|
Well yes that can be done that way as well. Static Subs used to do that with Mai-Otome. Not sure if they do it with anything else... But still if I aim for best quality in an encode. I tend to like using a more efficient codec as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat
Please don't interpret my questioning protocol as a sign of unappreciation. I like to think that criticism can only help (if it's honest)...
|
Well it's taken that way because you're asking encoders why they don't conform to your beliefs and a few other encoders beliefs. I don't want more robot encoders who do something cause they're peers do it that way. (Except when you're doing something that's breaking your encodes)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunboat Diplomat
You could also aim for image quality "that they are used to" but I understand, now, that some fansubbers really are going for a dichotomy of a reasonable quality anybody-can-play version and a high quality large-filesize newest-codec version for, what is hopefully, a reasonably large audience...
|
Yes. And the keyword is
some. All encoders do things differently from each other. We don't all just run off one script and one set of settings or predicted filesize for our encodes.